High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court rnay be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in interfering into my peaceful possession and enjoyment of trre property in respect of sy. No. 416 and 416 on prot No. 214t2 of pasumamula vi age under the limits of Pedda Amberpet Municipality while threatening the petitioner by issuing show cause notices, intimation notices show cause notice under section 17g(2), ,lgo<1), 181 of relangana Municipatities Act 2o1g directing the petitioner that they will demolish the shed without there being any, sufficient cause or recording any reasons and adopting the unlaMul and coercive measures by affixing the caution notices on the shutter disabling the petitioner to do the day to day business activities thereby causing irreparabre loss and mental agony, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper and infringement of rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under Constitution of lrrdia. lA NO: 'l OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to DIRECT the Respondents consider the petitioner application dated 271'1212024 following the due procedure and collect the regularization fee if any in respect of the unauthorized sheds while allowing the Petitioner to run their business activities in their premises Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI POTHAMSHETTI MANOJ KUMAR Counsel fcr the Respcndent No.1: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI S. RAVINDER REDDY, SC The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.24O5 of 2o25 ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri S. Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

2. Petitioner has purchased open plot bearing No.214 (North), admeasuring 150 Sq. yards in Sy.Nos.415 and 416, situated at Pasumamula village, Pedda Amberpet Municipality limits, Rangareddy District, under a registered sale deed bearing document No.3637 of 2022 dated 23.03 .2022. He has constructed four (4) shutters. He is doing wholesale trade business of electrical, sanitary, hardware, paints and steel materia-ls. He has made the said construction without obtaining prior permission from respondent No.2. Therelore, respondent No.2 has issued Show Cause Notice, dated 20-09.2024 to the petitioner herein as to why action shall not be taken KL,J W.P.No.24O5 of 2025 2 against the petitioner for making the said un-authorized construction. Seven days time was granted to the petitioner tc submit explanation. petitioner did not submit any explanation. Thereafter vide intimation dated O5.I1.2O24 respondent No.2 directed the peritioner to remove the said un-authorized construction within 15 days. Petitioner did not remove the said un-authorized constructio n.

3. On the other hand, she has proceeded with construction. Therefore, respondent No.2 has issued another intimation letter, dated 16.L2.2O24 to petitioner herein with a request to stop the construction and it is also specifically stated that despite directing the petitioner to stop construction, she has completed the construction. Therefore, respondent No.2 informed the petitioner that the subject propert5i is sealed in terms of Section 181 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2Ol9.In [act, petitioner herself filed the photographs in proof of the said seizu re. \'-\ /z' KL,J W.P.No.24O5 of 2025 -) +. Petitioner filed a writ petition vide W'P'No '36269 of 2024 declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in interfering into her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in respect of Sy.Nos'416 and 416 on Plot No.2l4 12 of Pasumamula Village under the limits of Pedda Amberpet Municipality white threatening the Petitioner by issuing show cause notices, intimation notices and show cause notice under sections 178' 180 and 181 of Telangana Municipalities Act 2O19 directing the Petitioner that they will demotish the shed without there being any sufficient cause or recording any reasons and adopting the unlawful and coercive measures by affixing the caution notices on the shutter disabling the Petitioner to d.o the day to day business activities thereby causing irreparable loss and menta-l agony, as illegal ald arbitrarSr. The same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 24.12.2024 granting liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedies. KL,J W.P.No.2405 of 2O2S 4

5. Thereafter, petitioner has submitted a representation dated 22.12.2024 to respondent No.2 seekjng regulariza.tion of her plots by imposing irne of 25o/o as per Section lgO of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2O19. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said representation, respondent No.2 did not act upon the sa-rne. Aggrieved by the said inaction of respondent No.2, petitioner fiied the present writ petition.

6. Whererrs, Sri S. Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has produced written instructions stating that petitioner has made construction without obtaining prior permission. Despite directing the petitioner to stop construction, she has not stopped alrd she has completed the construction. Therefore, the said property was seized. Respondent No.2 will take further action against the petitioner herein in terms of the 'lclangana Municipa-lities Act, 2O19. The said written instructions are placed on record. KL,J W.P.No.24O5 of 2025 5

7. Section 180 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 deals with 'Penalty'. The same is relevant and it is extracted below: "180. (1) Penaltg for unlauful Buildings,- Notu.titlstanding angthing contained in this Act, ang person uho, whether at his oun instance or at the instance ofang other person or angbody including a department of the Gouernment, undertakes or carries out construction or deueLopment of ang lau in contrauention of the statutory Master Plan or uithout permission, approual or sanction or in contrauention of any condition subject to uhich such permission, approual or sanction has been granted shall be punished with imprisonment for a tenn which mag ertend to three Aears, or either fine which mag ertend to tutentg fiue percent (25%) of the ualue of land or building including land in question as fixed bg the Registration Department at the time of using the land or building: Prouided that the fine imposed shall, in no case be less than ftfta per cent of the said amount besides demolition of the building and recouery of demolition cost from the owner of the building. KL,J W.P.No.24O5 of 2025 6 (2) Penaltg for parking utolations,- In case of buildings uhere the area earmarked for parking is being put to other use, the municipal commissioner shall leuy a penaltg on the Owner or Deueloper, which mctg extend to twentg fi.ue percent (25%) o-f the ualue of land or building including land in question as fixed bg the Registration Department at the time of using the land or building: Ptouided that the fi.ne imposed shall, in no case be: less than fiftg per cent of the said amount as prescribed. "

8. It does not deal with regular tzation. It only deals with 'Penalties'. However, having received the said representation, respondent No.2 should have been informed the said fact to the petitioner herein and has to take further action against the petitioner, in accordance with law.

9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to dispose of thc representation, dated 27.12.2024 KL,J W.P.No.24O5 of 2025 1 submitted by the petitioner and if respondent No'2 is not inclinedtoaccepttherequestmadebythepetitionerhe shall inform the said fact to the petitioner by way of communicating a reasoned order' He shall complete the saidexercisew"ithinaperiodoffour(4)weeksfromthe date of receipt of a copy of this order' Thereafter respondent No.2 shalt take action against the petitioner herein,inaccordancewiththeprocedurelaiddown under the Telangana Municipalities Act' 2019' Petitioner shall not un-seal the subject property and not to use the same, failing which liberty is granted to respondent No'2 to take action against the petitioner' in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs' Asa sequel, the miscellaneous petitions' if any' pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed' \ /TTRUE COPY" SDI ;h^iff8E8lL?A"^H SECTION OFFICER To, ; iHs{l!.ll?ffiipl:lH#iiHfff ffi:Hil,l, ::':" Telangana State. -Cp

3. The Municipal Commissioner, Pedda Amberpet, Rangareddy District' 4. o;;'ic i; S'ii'pothamshetti tvlanoj Kumar Advocate [OPUC] ; i;; dC.io for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad lt-1. .tl.! | 6. 6; CCG Sr-i S Ra'rindet Reddv, SC [oPUCI 7. Two CD CoPies ro.. ryruniJpai'nO;inisiration Urban Dievelopment, High Court TJ GJP I l HIGH COURT I I DATED:2919112025 I i I II I ORDER WP.No.2405 of 2025 -{ ( + 2 fl APH 2[25 * ,,.\ .: DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Yt- 4Til,--